Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 324227; Published
Judges Ronayne Krause, Jansen, and Stephens; Unanimous, Per Curiam Opinion by Judge Ronayne Krause
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [§3101(1)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion written by Judge Ronayne Krause involving a priority dispute, the Court of Appeals held the insurer of a vehicle that struck plaintiff's uninsured parked car while she was occupying it was not obligated to pay PIP benefits, because the insurer did not have priority under MCL 500.3114. Rather, the insurer assigned the claim by the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility was liable for benefits, the Court of Appeals held.
Plaintiff owned an uninsured vehicle that had just been repaired and was parked in front of her house. Plaintiff was occupying the vehicle while it was parked, when a car driven by Robert Daniels struck the rear of the vehicle. Plaintiff was injured and sought PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility, which assigned the claim to defendant American Country Insurance Company (ACIC). The driver of the vehicle that struck plaintiff's car was insured by defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange. There was no dispute that plaintiff was occupying the vehicle pursuant to MCL 500.3106(1)(c). Rather, the dispute was which insurer was liable for benefits. The trial court granted summary disposition for both ACIC and Farmers, finding that plaintiff was occupying an uninsured, parked vehicle contrary to the security provision in MCL 500.3101, and therefore neither insurer was obligated to pay benefits.
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for ACIC, but reversed summary disposition for Farmers.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals explained the parties' arguments, noting that at the trial level, the insurers had argued plaintiff was disqualified to benefits under MCL 500.3113(b) because the vehicle involved was owned by plaintiff and did not have the insurance coverage in effect at the time of injury, as required under §3101. On appeal, ACIC further claimed it was entitled to summary disposition because it was not an insurer listed in the order of priority under §3114(4). Plaintiff argued, however, that she was not required to maintain security on the vehicle under §3101(1) because the vehicle had been recently repaired and was not being operated on a highway at the time the plaintiff was injured or during the days leading up to that time.
Regarding the arguments made pursuant to §3113(b) and §3101(1), the Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff and said:
"Because any driving or movement on a highway was completed several days before the accident when plaintiff's vehicle was moved from the repair shop to 4th Street, and the vehicle was parked at the time of the accident, we agree with plaintiff's argument that security was not required at that time, presuming the facts are as plaintiff states them. Therefore, PIP benefits should not have been excluded under MCL 500.3113(b) and MCL 500.3101(1)."
The Court of Appeals went on to accept ACIC's argument that it was nonetheless entitled to summary disposition under §3114. The Court noted that, because there was no operator of the vehicle, ACIC was not the insurer under §3114(4)(b) and, therefore, ACIC was entitled to summary disposition. As to Farmers, the Court said it was the insurer of last priority and was therefore not entitled to summary disposition under §3114.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for ACIC, reversed summary disposition for Farmers, finding that it had higher priority to pay benefits, and remanded the case.
